Leisure, nature and environmental movements in the mass media: comparing Jumbo Pass and the Tobeatic Wilderness Area, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Media coverage from major provincial and national newspapers is used to examine two Canadian sites where leisure and tourism become objects of environmental movement mobilisation: the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort ski development (British Columbia), and the Tobeatic Wilderness Area (Nova Scotia). In both cases, environmentalists and government appear as central news sources. A dominant discourse defines both of these places as wilderness landscapes that need protection from ecologically inappropriate modes of outdoor recreation (downhill skiing and off-highway vehicle use). There are also key differences between the two cases. First, while motorised recreation is defined as inherently incompatible with the wilderness values of the Tobeatic, environmentalists ally with heli-ski operators at Jumbo Pass in their opposition to resort development. Second, news coverage of Jumbo Pass offers more space to environmentalist opponents to question the ‘wilderness’ status of the region. Finally, in the Jumbo case, tourism is linked to economic development in opposition to ecological protection. By contrast, tourism in the Tobeatic is interpreted as a pro-environmental alternative to extractive development. Despite differences between these conflicts, both demonstrate that the relationship between outdoor recreation and environmentalism may be conflictual, rather than mutually supportive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".